10 Aug
2011
10 Aug
'11
8:29 a.m.
On 09/08/2011, Thorsten Wilms <t_w_(a)freenet.de> wrote:
On 08/09/2011 09:50 PM, Gwenhwyfaer wrote:
Same place as reply-to gets it, I should imagine. (I can't shake the
feeling that you didn't think this question through.)
If you want to reply
to list, reply-to-all does it,
Reply-to-all gets the original senders address from where? Oh, and receiving mail with both a list and my address
in recipients as
result of a reply-to-all sucks, as it screws up filtering.
Oh. So my broken client is a problem that mustn't be worked around in
order to force a change, but your broken client is something that must
always be catered for by everyone else? There's a word for that kind
of thinking.
On the other hand, perhaps I shouldn't expect logic from someone who
attacks the one bit of a critical email which is basically in
agreement with them...